Indian Wells 2014 - 15 March

First topic message reminder :

STADIUM 1 Start 12:00 noon

[28] Alexandr Dolgopolov (UKR) v [7] Roger Federer (SUI)

[12] John Isner (USA) v [2] Novak Djokovic (SRB)

[1] Su-Wei Hsieh (TPE)
Shuai Peng (CHN)
v
[5] Cara Black (ZIM)
Sania Mirza (IND)

Not Before 5:30 pm

[1] Bob Bryan (USA) Mike Bryan (USA) v [2] Alexander Peya (AUT) Bruno Soares (BRA)

The ATP Singles are two excellent matches on the cards.  

IW 2012 SF saw an upset when Isner beat Djokovic in a third set TB. Can Isner repeat the feat?

Dolgopolov is playing some fantastic tennis, but can he beat the Old Man?

Enjoy!

Ah, this is why I love this forum.

Intelligence dripping more here then in some high-tech techno-Lab.

Superb

Fed slapped kind of the same FH shot yesterday, at the start of the match, it was out, and a little shorter and angled then Djokos in USO.

I heard that Jahu told Novak that his impressions were rubbish. Novak asked Jahu if he could do any better, so Jahu did an impression of Novak's mum.

At one point Djoko got confused when Jahu asked him what it was like working on 'Saved by the Bell'.

Hahahahah come on, leave moms out of this, don't be so nasty

Djoko was young then, still trying to find his rhythm, and a few little breathing probs.

Impressions that he does of others on court, are just a little Image enhancement tricks someone told him he should do.

Now he's rented Becker to do the marketing/image/sponsors side  

Your all jealous of me, even nitb would be kinder to me, then you lot.   

lags72 wrote:CC - given that I have (based on your general posting history) come to regard you over time as a perfectly rational & balanced individual, I must say that I am rather surprised - even a little concerned - by these emotional comments of yours in relation to Roger, along with your reference to "bolshe posters egos"

How very odd that you should give such weight to the ramblings and casual waffle written on an internet forum by people you do not actually know that it then affects your own personal perception of a particular athlete and his sporting achievements/progress.

The analogy that sprang to mind was me watching with admiration the silken skills of a certain Lionel Messi; but then - after reading a bit of OTT stuff from anonymous bloggers on a forum -  I conclude that it's best if he doesn't actually score any more goals and that I can (preferably) watch him be a failure rather than a success. Because that way, it might just help curb the "outlandish comments" ........ 

Lets put it another way lags. If I were sat next to a perfectly well-grounded Federer fan watching one of his matches I'd have no qualms about him winning. However, when you pop onto forums and they alter in atmosphere/personality depending on how well Federer fares then it changes things a tad. Do people wish Piers Morgan well in life when he acts nefariously....of course not. My well wishing of people/teams or whatever in life depends on that person. By this I mean if I were to meet Roger I'd be able to wish him the very best if he was amiable etc which by most accounts he is. However, a more obnoxious sort may not get such well wishes (see LaverFan's opinion on Ernest Gulbis in this tournament so the same goes for supporters of players who get bolshe/far too mouthy or too big for their boots.

CC, I have to give it to you. You are talking like some psychologist or a professor, analyzing so deep the way posters post, and how you go about thinking for other people.

Relax man, its sport, its just a forum, a little place where we vent our excess steam and probably more often then less, write or do silly stuff.

Chill

A bit more insight on the appointment of Becker:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/26609361

Vajda obviously very happy in his reduced role. Also says that Boris was not on their original 5 man list.

CaledonianCraig wrote:BJ or BS? Who knows? One notable thing that is clearly noticeable to the observant is how bolshe some posters become when Federer is back in a semblance of form. By that I mean we get brash and outlandish comments after perhaps a year of peacefulness. Just an observation. I never note such behaviour when Murray is in fine form or Novak or even Rafa.

Like who? I'm pretty sure that most of us on here who like Federer are not like that. Summerblues, Julius, lags are good examples.

You're a good guy Craig, but I have to agree with lags...this seems like confirmation bias. To each their own, I guess - I know that I won't change your mind.

Silver wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:BJ or BS? Who knows? One notable thing that is clearly noticeable to the observant is how bolshe some posters become when Federer is back in a semblance of form. By that I mean we get brash and outlandish comments after perhaps a year of peacefulness. Just an observation. I never note such behaviour when Murray is in fine form or Novak or even Rafa.

Like who? I'm pretty sure that most of us on here who like Federer are not like that. Summerblues, Julius, lags are good examples.

I like Fed, but when he plays Murray (or Henman or Agassi, before that) I support Murray to win.
The problem for me, I think, is that I have said one or two negative things about Rafa, therefore get tarred with the "Oh, you must be a Federer fan - only Federer fans say that, because they don't like Rafa beating him" brush. Then word seems to spread that I'm a big Federer fan, which I'm not.

I have more than once heard Alan Green (one of Five Live Sport's very best football commentators) defend himself against accusations that he is a Manchester United fan and hence biased when covering their matches. I for one am satisfied that he is not, and nor am I - but folk naively assume that the praise he (understandably & rightly) gave the team & manager when they were at their very best (ie not currently!) was a sign of fawning fandom.

Julius : your attitude re Federer is totally logical,  because once he is up against a player whom you want to win, then by definition you will want Fed to lose - that particular match at least. That's the way of any sport, always has been, always will be (a problem might arise if your name happens to be Richard Williams ....but we can leave that to one side for now)

CC, on the other hand, has rather oddly stated that he wants the Fed to lose simply because he doesn't like some of the (allegedly) "outlandish comments" made about him (Fed) by unidentified internet bloggers. The cunning plan is that if Fed loses, then these "outlandish" (and presumably highly toxic) comments "will be curbed"

This philosophy of CC seems a little detached from the world of sporting entertainment to me.

I should at this point put on record the fact that whenever Federer plays Borg, I want Federer to lose.

Anyone know if Borg intends to play Miami ??  No sign of his name last time I checked the entry field

lags72 wrote:I have more than once heard Alan Green (one of Five Live Sport's very best football commentators) defend himself against accusations that he is a Manchester United fan and hence biased when covering their matches.

I always thought Alan Green was a Liverpool fan. I can almost hear him drooling when he talks about Steven Gerrard.

It's quite possible HMM, I myself don't know for sure.

There are times when he will drool over various players of various teams - but fundamentally I think he does so not because of personal bias but because a) he is a real, down-to-earth enthusiast of the sport and b) he is anxious for that enthusiasm to be reflected in his commentary.

Ultimately there's a very fine line between offering the unbiased commentary that is expected of a BBC presenter and generating a sense of atmosphere and passion to the listening public. For me, Greenie treads the line as well as anyone possibly could.

lags72 wrote:I do believe that socal has been nurturing a secret dream that one day a commemorative statue of his man Djoko will be sculpted and erected on a huge marble plinth, along with a hand-carved decorative plaque by way of recognition of THAT point, there in perpetuity for future generations to behold and gaze upon in awe & wonder.

The actual wording would be nice & simple, and thoroughly understated and restrained in its own way (rather like some of his family members and biggest followers).

Something along the lines of ......oh, I don't know ...... "Shot of the Century"

I'm more than happy to put in a couple of dollars to kick start the collection........ 

Lets not cheapen the shot by limiting it to one century lags. I was thinking more along the lines of "The Greatest Shot since the Formation of Matter". I am no where near as effusive of Djokovic as people would like to make out. I am often critical and analyze his game with a cool and calm focus just like any other players. I am also quite logical in placing him in the historical context of the game. All joking about the "Shot" aside.

HM Murdoch wrote:A bit more insight on the appointment of Becker:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/26609361

Vajda obviously very happy in his reduced role. Also says that Boris was not on their original 5 man list.

Yes one could see that Vajda drove this thing because Novak looks at him as a second father and wanted to keep him around. But the travel schedule of criss crossing the globe really is not conducive to a guy with children like Vajda. Becker to me has always been an odd choice, while Lendl was laser like in his focus and drive in everything he attempted one can not say that about Becker. Could this be the sowing of seeds for an unceremonious dumping of Boris?

lags72 wrote:

CC, on the other hand, has rather oddly stated that he wants the Fed to lose simply because he doesn't like some of the (allegedly) "outlandish comments" made about him (Fed) by unidentified internet bloggers. The cunning plan is that if Fed loses, then these "outlandish" (and presumably highly toxic) comments "will be curbed"

This philosophy of CC seems a little detached from the world of sporting entertainment to me.

I should at this point put on record the fact that whenever Federer plays Borg, I want Federer to lose.

Anyone know if Borg intends to play Miami ??  No sign of his name last time I checked the entry field

Perhaps I never explained it well enough. Those of the bolshe comments and outlandish comments (for want of a better term) why would I want people with such traits to be able to derive pleasure unless attitudes are curbed. This is NOT me wanting Roger to lose like you may think but if a Fed loss puts those in their place then so be it. But please remember (if you dig back in time) I was most complimentary when Roger beat Andy in Wimbledon 2012 Final so it does not detract from me still being gracious in defeat.

CaledonianCraig wrote:However, a more obnoxious sort may not get such well wishes (see LaverFan's opinion on Ernest Gulbis in this tournament so the same goes for supporters of players who get bolshe/far too mouthy or too big for their boots.

I was absolutely peeved at a derogatory comment which was targeted at a gender, but later realised that I should have ignored it. It was a bad idea to get baited like that. My apology was towards the 606v2 community, rather than at Gulbis. I like him as a player, but cannot stand his puerile arrogance.

lags72 wrote:I should at this point put on record the fact that whenever Federer plays Borg, I want Federer to lose.

Anyone know if Borg intends to play Miami ??  No sign of his name last time I checked the entry field

I used to feel the same way when a teenage Borg would play Laver.

Although Federer and Borg do enjoy playing together - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayGv33lMVj8

@HB... thank you for initiating this thread.

Wrong thread.

socal1976 wrote:

lags72 wrote:I do believe that socal has been nurturing a secret dream that one day a commemorative statue of his man Djoko will be sculpted and erected on a huge marble plinth, along with a hand-carved decorative plaque by way of recognition of THAT point, there in perpetuity for future generations to behold and gaze upon in awe & wonder.

The actual wording would be nice & simple, and thoroughly understated and restrained in its own way (rather like some of his family members and biggest followers).

Something along the lines of ......oh, I don't know ...... "Shot of the Century"

I'm more than happy to put in a couple of dollars to kick start the collection........ 

Lets not cheapen the shot by limiting it to one century lags. I was thinking more along the lines of "The Greatest Shot since the Formation of Matter".

Very topical, given the physics news today! I'm definitely adopting this description from now on

@Julius, you're quite right, my mistake. I think of you as more of a Henman fan above all else, of course...

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Silver wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:BJ or BS? Who knows? One notable thing that is clearly noticeable to the observant is how bolshe some posters become when Federer is back in a semblance of form. By that I mean we get brash and outlandish comments after perhaps a year of peacefulness. Just an observation. I never note such behaviour when Murray is in fine form or Novak or even Rafa.

Like who? I'm pretty sure that most of us on here who like Federer are not like that. Summerblues, Julius, lags are good examples.

I like Fed, but when he plays Murray (or Henman or Agassi, before that) I support Murray to win.
The problem for me, I think, is that I have said one or two negative things about Rafa, therefore get tarred with the "Oh, you must be a Federer fan - only Federer fans say that, because they don't like Rafa beating him" brush. Then word seems to spread that I'm a big Federer fan, which I'm not.

In fairness, a lot of your comments do come across as very pro-Fed. Nothing wrong with that of course but based purely on your comments I would have said you preferred Fed to any other current player.

Silver wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

lags72 wrote:I do believe that socal has been nurturing a secret dream that one day a commemorative statue of his man Djoko will be sculpted and erected on a huge marble plinth, along with a hand-carved decorative plaque by way of recognition of THAT point, there in perpetuity for future generations to behold and gaze upon in awe & wonder.

The actual wording would be nice & simple, and thoroughly understated and restrained in its own way (rather like some of his family members and biggest followers).

Something along the lines of ......oh, I don't know ...... "Shot of the Century"

I'm more than happy to put in a couple of dollars to kick start the collection........ 

Lets not cheapen the shot by limiting it to one century lags. I was thinking more along the lines of "The Greatest Shot since the Formation of Matter".

Very topical, given the physics news today! I'm definitely adopting this description from now on

@Julius, you're quite right, my mistake. I think of you as more of a Henman fan above all else, of course...

LOL! Silver good to see that you are following everything like a true Renaissance man.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Silver wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:BJ or BS? Who knows? One notable thing that is clearly noticeable to the observant is how bolshe some posters become when Federer is back in a semblance of form. By that I mean we get brash and outlandish comments after perhaps a year of peacefulness. Just an observation. I never note such behaviour when Murray is in fine form or Novak or even Rafa.

Like who? I'm pretty sure that most of us on here who like Federer are not like that. Summerblues, Julius, lags are good examples.

I like Fed, but when he plays Murray (or Henman or Agassi, before that) I support Murray to win.
The problem for me, I think, is that I have said one or two negative things about Rafa, therefore get tarred with the "Oh, you must be a Federer fan - only Federer fans say that, because they don't like Rafa beating him" brush. Then word seems to spread that I'm a big Federer fan, which I'm not.

In fairness, a lot of your comments do come across as very pro-Fed. Nothing wrong with that of course but based purely on your comments I would have said you preferred Fed to any other current player.  

Julius likes to goad me by defending federer and the weak era. If I say chocolate he will say vanilla. He is very much a fed fan, although probably fed is not his #1 favorite.

By defending the likes of Hewitt and Safin, socal thinks I'm defending Fed. By applying logic where I see it lacking, socal again thinks I'm defending Fed. I've tried to explain the difference. My opinions were in place before I 'met' socal - they just happen to differ from his.
As I've said, I like Fed and I like watching him play, it's just that I'm not that bothered whether he wins or not. There are times when I want him to win and there are times when I want his opponent to win and there are times when I don't care. If I were a fan, by my definition, I'd want him to win all the time.

Given that your attempts to apply a sense of logic have so often failed, you should perhaps try following my well-used alternative philosophy JHM.

This simply involves recognising the existence of a 'socal world' - and accepting it is for what it is, in all its glory.

Its links to the real world are very often (though in fairness, not always) extremely tenuous at best. But it does help explain several wacky theories, and in the process generally makes life easier.

Worth a go !

Superb   

JuliusHMarx wrote:By defending the likes of Hewitt and Safin, socal thinks I'm defending Fed. By applying logic where I see it lacking, socal again thinks I'm defending Fed. I've tried to explain the difference. My opinions were in place before I 'met' socal - they just happen to differ from his.
As I've said, I like Fed and I like watching him play, it's just that I'm not that bothered whether he wins or not. There are times when I want him to win and there are times when I want his opponent to win and there are times when I don't care.  If I were a fan, by my definition, I'd want him to win all the time.

Yeah, I guess your position in weak era debates is one reason I thought you were a big Fed fan. Usually those debates are split between Fed fans arguing that Roddick and Hewitt were great but he was greater and everyone else suggesting that maybe they were, for various reasons, not as strong as most other eras. Its quite unusual for someone neutral to adopt your position.

Your point is well-made BS ; but of course it goes beyond that, and I've always thought that much of the misguided waffle about eras (and not least the stuff written by 'weak era' theorists) is simply the result of short-term memory syndrome as anything else.

Back to basics for a moment:

- Rafa won his first Slam way back in 2005, since when Federer has won 13 of his own
- Djokovic won his first Slam back in 2008, since when Fed has won 5 (so, just one fewer than Djoko's current tally)

It's safe to say that once you've won a Slam you're a pretty well-established feature on the tennis scene and an elite member of the tour. And as such, Rafa and Novak have been very much a part of the same 'era' as Federer, and facing the exact same competition as him for a big slice (indeed perhaps the most important slice) of their respective careers, and have watched while he added to his Slam haul.

Best stop there, can already feel myself getting bored with the well-worn subject matter (even if it is my own post ..... )

I always thought though that the weak era was levelled at the early 2000's and not 2005 onwards though. Whereas Novak, Rafael ad Andy have had Roger (GOAT elect) standing in their way did Roger have anybody of that class standing in his way? That is the argument I feel.

Sorry for rehashing this but what the hell the forum needs something to discuss.    

I am not quite sure what point you are making Lags. No sane person will argue that Federer is a poor player. He is a great champion who would have won slams in any era. The meat of the weak era debate is whether Fed could have crushed Nadal and Novak or other past champions were they the same age as he crushed his peers. As I understand most Federer fans position it is that, had Nadal and Djoko been Federer's age in 05-06, he would have been just as dominant. It was only Federer who prevented the likes of Nalby or Roddick from being as good as Rafa/Novak. The fact that, once Nadal, Novak and Murray turned 20-21 they have been fairly even with him is only because he passed his peak at 25-26 not because they were better than his peer group rivals.

For what it is worth, I agree Rafa's first couple of French Opens were won in a very poor clay court field. Had Ferrero been able to stay fit after his title in 03 or had Coria not been a basket-case I doubt Rafa would have been able to be so dominant so soon.

And from that you can create any situation you like, BS. If Rafa hadn't won those first 2 FOs so easily, would he have had the confidence to dominate on clay for years? Would he have been as prepared to do as well at Wimbledon without the confidence of all the FO victories? Etc etc. Who knows?

I'm a believer in the idea that the next generation targets the previous one and does whatever it can to reach that bar and usually does reaches and surpass it - that's the nature of sport. Djoko, Murray and Rafa all had the advantage of a bar to aim for, that the previous generation (Fed) set. If they had been contemporaries, all reaching for e.g. the Sampras bar, my opinion is that Fed would still have been way out in from of them, with the exception of Rafa on clay.

But it's unknowable - so many little things might have affected it. It's an alternate universe.

C'mon Tim!

Of course its all speculative. No one can win a debate of this nature because it can only ever be subjective. If Rafa had been 22 in 2003 and had faced Fed in the Wim SF then Fed's grand slam journey might have never started. If Fed had not existed and Roddick had won 9/10 slams would everyone be in agreement it was a weak era or would we be having similar debates? We don't know but that's no reason why they can't be topics of debate on a tennis forum.

The second point you make is an interesting one. In the past younger players were able to more swiftly adapt to better tech and therefore could surpass the targets set by their elders. However, I am unsure that is the case now or indeed was the case 7 years ago when Djoko emerged. The youngsters now have found it incredibly difficult to overhaul the foursome at the top of the sport. The impression is that rather than surpassing them they are still struggling to reach that level and wait for the top 4 to decline.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm a believer in the idea that the next generation targets the previous one and does whatever it can to reach that bar and usually does reaches and surpass it - that's the nature of sport.

Records that remain that, for several decades to come, seem to turn that on it's head. Tennis has it's own fair share.

The Laver 62/69 Grand Slams, not been achieved yet.

Once the current Top 4 exit stage left, the next generation (of Dimi, Rao, JJ, et al., ) are not close to such records.

Edberg's junior slam in 1983, Nicolas Pereira (1988 - this player is a total mystery to me) and Monfils (2004) came close.

The 'era' debate is cannon fodder for every forum and can be had as a perennial debate (as BS so aptly points out).

Not necessarily in terms of records LF, but in terms of level of play, although certainly Sampras' record of 14 served as a target.

@BS - the law of diminishing returns may have recently set in, in that there's only so far the human body can be pushed. I also think many younger players are looking at how fit you have to be nowadays and are either incapable of reaching that level or are not willing to push themselves to that limit. That was never the case in the past - yes, you had to be fit, but not they way it is nowadays.

lags72 wrote:Your point is well-made BS ; but of course it goes beyond that, and I've always thought that much of the misguided waffle about eras (and not least the stuff written by 'weak era' theorists) is simply the result of short-term memory syndrome as anything else.

Back to basics for a moment:

- Rafa won his first Slam way back in 2005, since when Federer has won 13 of his own
- Djokovic won his first Slam back in 2008, since when Fed has won 5 (so, just one fewer than Djoko's current tally)

It's safe to say that once you've won a Slam you're a pretty well-established feature on the tennis scene and an elite member of the tour. And as such, Rafa and Novak have been very much a part of the same 'era' as Federer, and facing the exact same competition as him for a big slice (indeed perhaps the most important slice) of their respective careers, and have watched while he added to his Slam haul.

Best stop there, can already feel myself getting bored with the well-worn subject matter (even if it is my own post ..... )

I feel like Pacino in Godfather 3 unable to get away from his destiny. Again the weak era is not about Roger, no one doubts he is a great player in any era. But it doesn't mean that some of his early dominance and stats weren't a bit padded by the ineptitude of the rollover generation. To a lesser extent Agassi and Sampras also benefitted from the weak early 2000s. Or to say that Rafa, Andy, and Nole have faced tougher competition in their careers at least at the beginning than what Federer faced isn't really saying Roger is a fraud or not really that good. Was Djokovic the same player in 08 as he is today, come now. Was Rafa as good on faster surfaces in 05 as he was last year? These are convenient fictions.

Born Slippy wrote:Of course its all speculative. No one can win a debate of this nature because it can only ever be subjective. If Rafa had been 22 in 2003 and had faced Fed in the Wim SF then Fed's grand slam journey might have never started. If Fed had not existed and Roddick had won 9/10 slams would everyone be in agreement it was a weak era or would we be having similar debates? We don't know but that's no reason why they can't be topics of debate on a tennis forum.

The second point you make is an interesting one. In the past younger players were able to more swiftly adapt to better tech and therefore could surpass the targets set by their elders. However, I am unsure that is the case now or indeed was the case 7 years ago when Djoko emerged. The youngsters now have found it incredibly difficult to overhaul the foursome at the top of the sport. The impression is that rather than surpassing them they are still struggling to reach that level and wait for the top 4 to decline.

Great post BS, the fact that the youngsters and their predecessors have found it so hard to deal with Rafa, Novak, and Andy seems to lead credence to what commentators have been saying that this particular group of champions is very special. Some of this is down to the nature of the changing tour and the changing game which favors a more polished and hardened athlete.

socal1976 wrote:Or to say that Rafa, Andy, and Nole have faced tougher competition in their careers at least at the beginning...

So who were the tough players that, say, Rafa faced from 2005-2007?

socal1976 wrote:

lags72 wrote:Your point is well-made BS ; but of course it goes beyond that, and I've always thought that much of the misguided waffle about eras (and not least the stuff written by 'weak era' theorists) is simply the result of short-term memory syndrome as anything else.

Back to basics for a moment:

- Rafa won his first Slam way back in 2005, since when Federer has won 13 of his own
- Djokovic won his first Slam back in 2008, since when Fed has won 5 (so, just one fewer than Djoko's current tally)

It's safe to say that once you've won a Slam you're a pretty well-established feature on the tennis scene and an elite member of the tour. And as such, Rafa and Novak have been very much a part of the same 'era' as Federer, and facing the exact same competition as him for a big slice (indeed perhaps the most important slice) of their respective careers, and have watched while he added to his Slam haul.

Best stop there, can already feel myself getting bored with the well-worn subject matter (even if it is my own post ..... )

I feel like Pacino in Godfather 3 unable to get away from his destiny. Again the weak era is not about Roger, no one doubts he is a great player in any era. But it doesn't mean that some of his early dominance and stats weren't a bit padded by the ineptitude of the rollover generation. To a lesser extent Agassi and Sampras also benefitted from the weak early 2000s. Or to say that Rafa, Andy, and Nole have faced tougher competition in their careers at least at the beginning than what Federer faced isn't really saying Roger is a fraud or not really that good. Was Djokovic the same player in 08 as he is today, come now. Was Rafa as good on faster surfaces in 05 as he was last year? These are convenient fictions.

As is the idea that Fed is was somehow as good from 2008 onwards as he was before that. Or the idea that Murray is somehow head and shoulders above the like of Hewitt or Roddick. As usual, socal ignores the facts that don't support his theory and sticks to nice turns of phrase in an attempt to impress. "The ineptitude of the grand-slam winning, world No 1s rollover generation". By the time Djoko hit his peak, Fed was part of Djoko's rollover generation - past his beat, inconsistent etc, yet you big up Fed when Fed was 'weak' and downgrade his opponents when Fed was 'strong'.

"The weak era is not abut Roger, even though I openly admit to hating the guy and love it when he loses and would love his legacy to be downgraded - but it's not abut him, really it isn't" - I think that's what you meant to say

Oh dear JHM, is your memory letting you down ....??

Surely you can't have forgotten the other elite stars occupying Top Ten ranking spots immediately below Rafa in, say, 2006 - including, significantly, a number of socal's all-time favourite players ....?

I give you none other than James Blake, Nalby, Ljubicic, Hewitt, and of course Roddick.

(and in the number one spot itself, there was IIRC some guy from Switzerland......)

So the rollover generation and Rafa's tough early opponents were, in fact, the same players?

Hmm....I hadn't actually thought of it like that before .....  

But based on fundamental definition & logic, I have to say that the answer to your question is ....er ......yes.

What a surprise.

JuliusHMarx wrote:So the rollover generation and Rafa's tough early opponents were, in fact, the same players?

Rafa faced a peak Federer at his absolute best, who was waiting for Federer of that level in 03 and 04. Also Rafa has had a much closer rivalry with Djokovic another all time great at his same age. Who exactly is an all time great the same age as Federer?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

lags72 wrote:Your point is well-made BS ; but of course it goes beyond that, and I've always thought that much of the misguided waffle about eras (and not least the stuff written by 'weak era' theorists) is simply the result of short-term memory syndrome as anything else.

Back to basics for a moment:

- Rafa won his first Slam way back in 2005, since when Federer has won 13 of his own
- Djokovic won his first Slam back in 2008, since when Fed has won 5 (so, just one fewer than Djoko's current tally)

It's safe to say that once you've won a Slam you're a pretty well-established feature on the tennis scene and an elite member of the tour. And as such, Rafa and Novak have been very much a part of the same 'era' as Federer, and facing the exact same competition as him for a big slice (indeed perhaps the most important slice) of their respective careers, and have watched while he added to his Slam haul.

Best stop there, can already feel myself getting bored with the well-worn subject matter (even if it is my own post ..... )

I feel like Pacino in Godfather 3 unable to get away from his destiny. Again the weak era is not about Roger, no one doubts he is a great player in any era. But it doesn't mean that some of his early dominance and stats weren't a bit padded by the ineptitude of the rollover generation. To a lesser extent Agassi and Sampras also benefitted from the weak early 2000s. Or to say that Rafa, Andy, and Nole have faced tougher competition in their careers at least at the beginning than what Federer faced isn't really saying Roger is a fraud or not really that good. Was Djokovic the same player in 08 as he is today, come now. Was Rafa as good on faster surfaces in 05 as he was last year? These are convenient fictions.

As is the idea that Fed is was somehow as good from 2008 onwards as he was before that. Or the idea that Murray is somehow head and shoulders above the like of Hewitt or Roddick. As usual, socal ignores the facts that don't support his theory and sticks to nice turns of phrase in an attempt to impress. "The ineptitude of the grand-slam winning, world No 1s rollover generation". By the time Djoko hit his peak, Fed was part of Djoko's rollover generation - past his beat, inconsistent etc, yet you big up Fed when Fed was 'weak' and downgrade his opponents when Fed was 'strong'.

"The weak era is not abut Roger, even though I openly admit to hating the guy and love it when he loses and would love his legacy to be downgraded - but it's not abut him, really it isn't" - I think that's what you meant to say

Fed was so terrible that in 2012 he won wimbeldon, and yes Andy Murray is head and shoulders better than Hewitt and Roddick. Head, shoulders, thorax, ass, and balls better than them. He already has more masters than both of them combined and as many slams as Hewitt with more slams likely to come in the future. As lags has pointed out after Djokovic won his first slam Federer won 5 more slams, that is more than all of fed's contemporaries during the rollover age. Djokovic has two contemporaries that are the same age and great players, fed really had maybe Hewitt who was injured all the time and was clearly not of fed's talent and Safin who paid attention about a couple of months throughout his whole career.

Old ground socal. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. Can we be bothered anymore?

socal1976 wrote: Was Rafa as good on faster surfaces in 05 as he was last year? These are convenient fictions.

Nadal has tried on so-called fast surfaces (aka WTF) and has yet to win a single title on it. Fast surfaces are few on tour. Paris, Lyon, Dubai, WTF, Basel, Cincinnati, Queens, Canada (Toronto/Montreal) etc., come to mind.

We can have the other debate about fast surfaces. There are very few S&V players left on tour.

It was Amrit/Red who mentions Nadal's Dubai 2006 or Miami 2004/2005.

LF, Rafa won Queens in 2008 (beat Novak in the final) and has won Canada at least twice off the top of my head (perhaps more than that) plus Cincy last year where he beat Roger in a very good 3 set match (QF ?). Where he does struggle is indoors - only one title in his whole career (Madrid 2005).

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote: Was Rafa as good on faster surfaces in 05 as he was last year? These are convenient fictions.

Nadal has tried on so-called fast surfaces (aka WTF) and has yet to win a single title on it. Fast surfaces are few on tour. Paris, Lyon, Dubai, WTF, Basel, Cincinnati, Queens, Canada (Toronto/Montreal) etc., come to mind.

We can have the other debate about fast surfaces. There are very few S&V players left on tour.

It was Amrit/Red who mentions Nadal's Dubai 2006 or Miami 2004/2005.

Llodra will be retiring at the end of the season too

AFCWomble42 wrote:LF, Rafa won Queens in 2008 (beat Novak in the final) and has won Canada at least twice off the top of my head (perhaps more than that) plus Cincy last year where he beat Roger in a very good 3 set match (QF ?). Where he does struggle is indoors - only one title in his whole career (Madrid 2005).

Yes, the Indoor enigma. He will probably get one before he retires though.

16 titles on "Hard" though (not all listed here).

2005 - Canada, Beijing
2006 - Dubai
2008 - Olympics, Canada, W, Queens
2009 - AO
2010 - W
2013 - Cincinnati, Canada

17 Hard finals, so nothing to sneeze at. I should have qualified my statement.

The Special Juan wrote:Llodra will be retiring at the end of the season too

Did not know that.